Ken Loach was on the BBC’s Newsnight programme this evening debating the miner’s strike with Nigel Lawson. It was clear, I think, that Ken Loach is a sad man who has completely missed the failure of socialism.
He described a post-war Britain in which people had learnt the value of working together. His idea was that working together meant State ownership and, far from debating the whether the mines needed to be closed, he attacked the individualist world that was created by the destruction of the destructive unions.
I thought that intellectual socialism was dead in the UK. I thought that the young who would have joined the CND and marched in protest at anti-Union laws in the 1970s and 80s, had now moved on to supporting (un)Fair Trade and complaining about Global Warming (while simultaneously defending people who don’t believe in science when it suits them). But it appears there are a still few stalwarts the BBC can dig out to attack the consensus and provide ‘balance’.
Far from causing an age of selfishness, a period of genuine capitalism would have increased charitable giving and would have enabled all in society to benefit from the fruits of economic growth. Those fruits, which come from being competitive, do not just benefit the so-called fat cats, they also provide employment to the masses through direct employment by the successful companies but also through employment providing services to those employees. By working against each other in a competitive spirit (which isn’t nasty and aggressive) everyone benefits. I imagine a deeply depressing world inside Ken Loach’s head and I feel pity in a way which I am sure would cause him to become angry at me for patronising him.
But Newsnight tried to suggest that the ideological age was behind us; tried to imply that consensus politics had arrived and the debate was over a smaller middle-ground. I think that is dangerously naive. Aside from the obvious dangers of extreme left-wing players in the form of the BNP, Respect and Islamic Fascism, we also have the idealogical split between those who believe in freedom and those who do not.
The truth is there are three major parties two of which claim to believe in personal freedom to some extent (Conservatives, Liberal Democrats), and one which does not (Labour) and there are three minor parties that believe in freedom (Libertarians, UK Independence Party, Cannabis Alliance) and countless that do not.
But at any election, if a member of the public believes in the repeal of RIPA (nationally) or in the abolition of Civil Parking Enforcement (locally) or in a withdrawal of Council services that would be better served by charities (nationally or locally) who should someone vote for? Cameron’s new Bill of Rights is more promising than the offers from other parties hence my affiliation, but there’s really no chance of the Road Traffic Act being amended.
Socialism has been mortally wounded but environmentalists, Fair Trade advocates (you know it’s being promoted in schools?) and europhiles still pose a significant danger.
Classical liberals are now fighting on two fronts and it is by no means certain that we will win eventually. It is important that debates continues, that good science (biology, chemistry, geology, palaeontology, physics) is allowed freedom from attack by the religious, and that good people do not hide behind the most frightening phrase of our time: “If you have nothing to hide…”
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by Matt Davies on March 6th, 2009 - 12:00 am
Well said Gavin, I agree with nearly all of that, accept for your faith in Cameron.
Keep fighting the good fight though and I hope he proves me wrong.
#2 by Maria on March 6th, 2009 - 12:38 am
WERE there any anti-union laws in the 1970s? I don’t recall any! I thought Thatcher started that in the 1980s? Another unneccesary mention of the 1970s, Mr A?
#3 by Maria on March 6th, 2009 - 12:49 am
I’ve taken a look around the net and the early 1980s seems to have been the time of “anti-union” laws, passed by the Thatcher Government. It also appears to have been the time when the CND experienced a great revival as protests began about Cruise Missiles being based in the UK. So, I ask again, where do the 1970s come into it, Mr Ayling – why can’t people like you simply write “1980s”? Does it really hurt you to admit that some things were simply 1980s?
#4 by Gav on March 6th, 2009 - 1:00 am
Thank you Maria, I didn’t realise “people like me” had a particular problem with not saying 1970s! I honestly thought the CND stuff was mostly 70s but I’m not motivated to check if I’m honest — my point’s not damaged by that is it?
#5 by Ron on March 6th, 2009 - 12:56 pm
Good thoughtful post, though I agree with Matt Davies about the conservatives.
#6 by Matt Davies on March 29th, 2009 - 8:29 am
Ideology is really no different from religion; both are based upon faith and ignore the wider reality. Your rather peculiar bias in favour of ignorant conservatism and a pick-and-choose-what-you-dislike variation of what you have labeled socialism in no way reflect even a remotely accurate picture of the world. You need to explore science and the measurement of reality through the sciences. Your point of view is no different from an islamic terrorist, a self-proclaimed communist, a tribal shaman, a leader of a conservative party, a bank executive, or a mental patient.
#7 by Matt Davies on March 29th, 2009 - 1:07 pm
Speaking of mental patients, I apologise for may namesake aboves escape.